Talk:Ruble
|
|
| Contents |
Tselkovyi
Origins of "tselkovyi" ("целковый") name, ? Mikkalai 17:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I can find only one original reference to this and wonder how accurate it is. It may be a mistake in spelling from converting the Cyrillics so have not deleted Dainamo 21:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Merging of Talk:Rouble into Talk:Ruble
Without prejudice to the possibility of Ruble being renamed back to Rouble, i have merged the histories of the two corresponding talk pages, lest there be confusion about which should be used to discuss the article name. The reason for that choice is that Rouble is currently a redirect; if Ruble is renamed to Rouble, including the talk page in the rename will require one more click. --Jerzy(t) 14:41, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
Commentary on Histories prior to Talk Merge
For the sake of any who find this talk-page's history page to be cryptic, the top two entries shown below were edits made to Talk:Rouble (at this writing converted via history merger into a redir to Talk:Ruble) and the third was an edit to Talk:Ruble).
- 21:21, 2004 Jul 26 Dainamo m (sp)
- 21:19, 2004 Jul 26 Dainamo (copy discussion from Ruble)
- 17:59, 2004 Jun 2 Mikkalai
--Jerzy(t) 14:41, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
Rouble or Ruble?
Unchanged Discussion from RfD
[The following is as of this edit an unchanged extract from WP:RfD, where (according to the charter of that page) it constituted a proposal that Rouble be deleted with the intention that that title should not be used again. As it was clear no one involved desired that outcome, i struck the request and discussion thru after copying it here. My intent is that the discussion carry on here.] --Jerzy(t) 14:41, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
I guess i'm going to make a copy, reformat & refactor (re potentially important tech issues vs. name) it, omit what concerns just the RfD distraction, and intend that to be the place that collects post-move responses. (Hopefully in the next 12 hours.) Not sure why i'm feeling that's important, but if i'm crazy, someone will throw the "clean" version away and we can inspect it in the history if/when it matters. --Jerzy(t) 15:22, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
- Rouble - this needs to be deleted, so that Ruble can be moved here. Unfortunately, user Dainamo copy-pasted the text from Ruble (that obviously deleted the history) and because he has thus made edits to Rouble, it can't be overwritten when moving the Ruble article. Paranoid 22:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Why does Ruble need to be moved? It seems to be fine where it is. RickK 04:17, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Apoligies as I may have done something that is not protocol here, I am not so much of a newbie but still an adolescent on these pages. I was attempting to make the main article on this "rouble" and the alternate spelling "ruble" (used far less and IMAO looks illiterate - Google hits confirm this) TThe history is still there, just on two pages and that can be navigating, but if you can suggest someting better then fine. Dainamo
- But it seems to me that Ruble is much more commonly used. RickK 22:11, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Rick please demonstrate your evidence. Every source I have ever seen in literature has been "rouble" this I admit is anecdotal (the same as yours). In my main paper based dictionary both spellings are given but the primary source "Rouble" but it may be different in others. To use empirical evidence, I searched both words on Google and "Rouble" has more hits by a long way. Dainamo
- It's only anecdotal. "Rouble" seems more like a French spelling than an English spelling. And when I do Google searches, I get tons of non-relevant hits. RickK 19:09, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
- You will get relevant and irrelevant hits on either spelling, ruble totals 228,000 rouble totals 694,000. Also check out http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=S%26)H4.PA'%25%0A If The Economist spells it "rouble" that is a bloody big indicator! Dainamo
- The Russian Ministry of Finance uses both ruble [1] (http://www.minfin.ru/ex_debt/p290501.htm) and rouble [2] (http://www.minfin.ru/off_inf/112.htm). The New York Times and Time magazine seem to use ruble. Perhaps it's a North America vs. Europe thing. By the way, if The Economist is to be our standard, then kindly change Calcutta back to Kolkata. -- Curps 00:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Associated Press foreign exchange says "ruble" [3] (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040730/ap_on_bi_ge/foreign_exchange_17). As of this moment, News.Google.com gives 705 hits for "ruble", only 97 hits for "rouble". -- Curps 00:41, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Wall Street Journal uses "ruble": past 30 days archive: 73 hits, premium archive: 115 hits. For "rouble", zero hits. -- Curps 00:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- In fairness, we can all find specific examples of ruble and rouble being used by official organisations. It appears that ruble may outweigh rouble in North American and rouble outweighs ruble the rest of the World, but both are accepted spellings. Wikipedia adopts a policy of leaving the spelling in whatever version of English it is written, but this precedent does not apply here, since neither spelling is one or the other. The best policy is therefore to adopt the spelling used by most globally and this is clearly "Rouble" if you do a thorough search from a number of sources.Dainamo 15:15, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Uh, why is this being discussed here instead of the talk page? One or the other is going to be a redirect to the other, so this is not a proposal to eliminate anything from the namespace. It is a request for a temporary clerical deletion, which could have gone to any admin. Hopefully most admins would say "settle which is going to be which, and when there's been a thorough discussion that reaches consensus or failing that reaches a conclusion by a vote, that will be the time to temporarily delete if that's what achieving the agreed-upon configuration requires." Take it to Talk:Rouble! --Jerzy(t) 03:55, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
End of copied material.
Refactored Discussions for Further Comment
Technical Issues
On 2004 July 26-27,
- Paranoid 22:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) requested RfD for Rouble to accommodate rename of Ruble to Rouble, believing copy-pasting the text "obviously deleted the history". Para wants the deletion since Rouble, having been edited, can't be "overwritten".
- It is true that a copy-paste operation omits to copy the history, but it is potentially confusing to call it deleted, since it still exists on the page the text was copied from.
- The reason a rename (using the move page) of Ruble back to Rouble is prevented is not really the fact that it was edited (tho that would be sufficient to prevent it). (And tho deletion, in the sense used on RfD, is theoretically a cure, it not an acceptable one; more a little below abt that.) Saying an existing target must be a "historyless redirect" is closer to the truth, but that still leaves out part of the requirement. Actually, no one can rename to an existing page title, unless that page is the redirect created by a previous rename exactly in the opposite "direction".
- --Jerzy(t) 02:32, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
- and Dainamo pointed out that "TThe history is still there, just on two pages and that can be navigating, but if you can suggest someting better then fine."
- Yes, the history remains there on the history page of the redirect. That situation is often permitted to persist, but there is something better, which is getting it where rightfully belongs, in the history of the article; that's better bcz there's little hint in the article-page history of where to find the additional history, and not everyone's up to hunting it down. --Jerzy(t) 01:48, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
- But the most important misconception here is one i've already mentioned parenthetically, that the deletion requested would help. The fact is that deletion via RfD is exactly what would lose the history, in practice permanently. The history goes when the page it applies to goes, and unless it's undeleted before the time when its undeletion is not longer possible, it's gone for ever. --Jerzy(t) 01:48, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
- My main point here has been to avoid propagating misconceptions, but it'd also be good to broaden the awareness, to some colleagues who've been put in a position where the subject is raised, of what we do about cut and paste edits:
- The history of a single article is divided between pages A and B, and we want A to be the title of the article.
- A temporary deletion of A is done by an admin, without going through any of the deletion-vote pages.
- A move of B to A (renaming of B as A) is done, making the former history of B the only history of the new A (and leaving a redirect from B to A as the entire history of B).
- The deleted version of A is undeleted. The effect is sometimes immediately visible, and sometimes takes something like 12 hours to appear: the two histories, and the two sets of old versions, are now listed on the history page of A; sometimes there are nicely sorted by time-stamp, and sometimes the next edit forces that change.
- Besides those necessary steps, my own practice in doing merges is to make "step 1&onehalf;" reformatting each of the old histories into a passage on the talk page, indicating which edit was done under which name. Without that, it's tricky and confusing to figure out more than what text existed after a given edit; with the two histories, and a little practice, its not too hard to see what change a given edit made in the text of whichever page (of the two formerly separate pages) that particular edit was applied to.
- --Jerzy(t) 01:48, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
Title Controversy
- The title had long been Ruble.
- Someone made Rouble into a redirect to Ruble (and reverted Ruble back to an article if it had become a redirect).
- RickK 04:17, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC) says it "seems to be fine where it is", apparently preferring the existing name "Ruble".
- Dainamo explicitly argues for applying again the change of title to "Rouble" that they previously made: 'I was attempting to make the main article on this "rouble" and the alternate spelling "ruble" (used far less and IMAO looks illiterate - Google hits confirm this)'.
- RickK 22:11, Jul 28, 2004 responds "But it seems to me that Ruble is much more commonly used. "
- Dainamo counters, 'Rick please demonstrate your evidence. Every source I have ever seen in literature has been "rouble" this I admit is anecdotal (the same as yours). In my main paper based dictionary both spellings are given but the primary source "Rouble" but it may be different in others. To use empirical evidence, I searched both words on Google and "Rouble" has more hits by a long way.'
- RickK 19:09, Jul 29, 2004 says 'It's only anecdotal. "Rouble" seems more like a French spelling than an English spelling. And when I do Google searches, I get tons of non-relevant hits.'
- Dainamo says 'You will get relevant and irrelevant hits on either spelling, ruble totals 228,000 rouble totals 694,000. Also check out http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=S%26)H4.PA'%25%0A If The Economist spells it "rouble" that is a bloody big indicator! '
- Curps 00:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) joins the discussion, saying "The Russian Ministry of Finance uses both ruble [4] (http://www.minfin.ru/ex_debt/p290501.htm) and rouble [5] (http://www.minfin.ru/off_inf/112.htm). The New York Times and Time magazine seem to use ruble. Perhaps it's a North America vs. Europe thing. By the way, if The Economist is to be our standard, then kindly change Calcutta back to Kolkata. "
- and also, at 00:41, 2 Aug 2004, saying 'Associated Press foreign exchange says "ruble" [6] (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040730/ap_on_bi_ge/foreign_exchange_17). As of this moment, News.Google.com gives 705 hits for "ruble", only 97 hits for "rouble".'
- and at 00:53, 2 Aug 2004 saying 'Wall Street Journal uses "ruble": past 30 days archive: 73 hits, premium archive: 115 hits. For "rouble", zero hits.'
- Dainamo 15:15, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) responded 'In fairness, we can all find specific examples of ruble and rouble being used by official organisations. It appears that ruble may outweigh rouble in North American and rouble outweighs ruble the rest of the World, but both are accepted spellings. Wikipedia adopts a policy of leaving the spelling in whatever version of English it is written, but this precedent does not apply here, since neither spelling is one or the other. The best policy is therefore to adopt the spelling used by most globally and this is clearly "Rouble" if you do a thorough search from a number of sources.'
Jerzy(t) 03:55, 2004 Aug 6 complained at that point that the discussion belonged back on the talk page of the article in question, not on RfD. (He carelessly referred to Talk:Rouble, tho Talk:Ruble is more appropriate since the article is still at Ruble.) Later, he did a history merge (no content merge needed) to consolidate the two talk pages into one. Then he struck out the RfD discussion, putting a copy here, and eventually producing this refactoring, and taking most of a day off starting about now. --Jerzy(t) 02:32, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
Jerzy, I am almost speachless as to your efficiency and excellent administrative judgment in the actions you have taken concerning moving and presenting the above discussion. Well done and thank you. Dainamo 11:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I would like to side with Dainamo and propose that we adopt "rouble" as primary spelling. While existing argumentation is suffcent to make the change, I can suggest another one. The spelling "rouble" is more accurate fonetically, since in russian rouble is called "r-oo-bl'".
Would anyone object if I rename the article and change the spelling to "rouble" through the text? "Ruble" will redirect to "rouble", of course.--Maxx.T 14:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'd personally prefer ruble. Nightstallion 15:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No personal preference from myself, as they are synonyms. Few inf. from sources which are nearest to me now. Google search produce very close results (although rouble is slightly ahead). Soviet Russian-English dict. (1981) translates "рубль" as "rouble". Russia's English-Russian dict. (1994) says: "ruble=rouble", "rouble рубль". Cmapm 16:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As a "ruble" partisan, my opinion need not be treated as impartial, but we've enjoyed 10 months of calm (and presumably efficient work elsewhere) since the matter was dropped in August. Especially since there was a pretty thoro discussion at that time, please consider simply not disturbing the status quo.
(And don't assume that everyone has said all they might have said if the issue had stayed active. Or all they may say if it revives.)
--Jerzy·t 05:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Goznak
The article about Goznak is still missing. There's a great article in Russian here: http://www.goznak.ru/news.shtml?id=120, could anyone translate it into English?
Chervonets
Can anyone provide evidence that "3-ruble gold coin" was ever called "chervonets"? Being a native speaker, I beleive "chervonets" refered to a sum of 10 roubles only. Unless someone can provide evidence, I suggest reference to 3 rouble coin is deleted. --Maxx.T 12:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- See [7] (http://www.nposrednik.ru/articles1/120/20072004_1.php?PHPSESSID=877ea98cbc39c643ff018cb2a7b74dba). But the story was much more complex. Read also [8] (http://sbor.kylt.ru/ri/rosim6.htm) and [9] (http://www.statesymbol.ru/currency/20050420/39595485.html). — Monedula 08:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Poltinnik
I know poltinnik comes from an old Russian word poltina, but not sure of it's roots. If we have any linguists here, would be great to have more detail on this work
--Maxx.T 12:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
In Slavic languages the stem "tin-"/"cin-" was related to the meaning "to cut". It is fully preserved in Polish ("odcinek", etc.) and Belarusian. The words of this root are quite common in battle scenes of old manuscripts in what used to be called "Old Russian" language: (warriors in these old times just loved to cut each other) "тяти", "потяти", "потинати", "потяту быти", etc., also preserved in bylinas. "-in" in "tin" is a suffix of the imperfect (incomplete) form: compare: "nachat", "nachinat". "Pol-" is "half-". So, "poltina" is literally "half-cut" or "cut half", whatever. This opinion was expressed, e.g., by Max Vasmer in his Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (If you will look for his book in Russian lang, look for "Fasmer": German V sounds like Russian F.).
BTW, since you seem to like money, there was also "полуполтинник". Mikkalai 21:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Wholesome
From /* Origins */, i set out to
- rm the defensive "Throughout the world"
- rm the misleading association between "cutting" to make change and "clipping" to have your cake and eat it too
- rep "chunk" --> "sliver"
- rm needless duplication of the two articles lked in the followin, but
I got this far:
- The term reflects the common practice of clipping precious metal coins whenever governments succeed neither in deterring that nor in substituting fiat money. A small chunk was cut from a coin by its current holder before the coin was tendered at the full value. Over a period the coins had become obviously smaller, but legally still carried the full face value. Thus wholesome adjective was needed to distinguish the uncut coins.
& ran out of what did make sense in the loosely reasoned old text without having grasped the author's point about why one coin got the wholesome name. Were rubles cut to make change? Were the wholesome rubles edge-milled to combat clipping? Text still needs to be removed from the last 3 sentences i moved here, but i don't understand enuf finish it. In the meantime, IMO the article is stronger without the confusing 'graph.
--Jerzy·t 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can we see some evidence that the name is related to coin clipping? I thought the first roubles appeared when they cut large silver nuggets to smaller pieces. They cut smaller pieces from a large nugget and stamped them, i.e. the original roubles were not nescessarily flat, like mordern coins. The whole issue of coin clipping appeared later. --Maxx.T 05:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Armenian
An anon replaced armenian transliteration:
- | roublu + | roublee
Can anyone verify this change? (I know only one armenian word: "am" What does it mean?) mikka (t) 21:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)